Organics: what's the fuss about?

I stand corrected.

Thanks
Clare

I am amazed that the Medical Features Editor of New Scientist is apparently unaware that the Soil Association put that claim to the Food Standards Agency, which had it independently assessed by experts, and rejected it as unfounded, on
19 September 2006:

'The FSA has concluded that whilst this study shows that organically produced milk can contain higher levels of types of fats called short-chain omega-3 fatty acids than conventionally produced milk, the evidence suggests that these fatty acids appear to be of limited health benefit compared to the longer chain omega-3 fatty acids found in oily fish.2,3

'Short-chain fatty acids can be converted to these long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, which have been shown to be protective against cardiovascular disease. However the conversion rate of the short-chain fatty acids to the longer chain fatty acids appears to be very limited.4,5

'Therefore, organic milk consumed in volumes consistent with a healthy diet, would not provide sufficient amounts of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids to provide significant health benefits, over and above those associated with conventional milk.'

This was also conveyed to the researcher concerned in a letter from Deirdre Hutton on 19 September 2006, and published on the FSA website.

I noted that in his lecture Lord Melchett continued to claim nutritional superiority of organic milk, but I recall he based it on the phrase 'short-chain omega-3 fatty acids;' a weasel-worded claim to say the least.

I am pleased the issue of lifestyle choice has entered the food debate. What surprises me is that people think lifestyle choice is not that important. I think if many people thought about this for a moment they would hope to be making the right lifestyle choices for as long as they possibly can. Thus, I think that when government officials talk about lifestyle choice they are speaking about matters of extremely high importance not low importance. A true sense of sense of healthy lifestyle and sustainability is required- organic or not

I don't understand why scientists then can't make an informed judgement based on physical tests of both organic and non-organic food to see which one has more beneficial effects to the other. How is it that for the drug companies endless tests are done to prove they do or don't do damage but with food we pay so much less attention to giving customers the answer? Do tests on the food and the chemicals that are being used and then one can give the answer to the nutritional side at least. This seems to be the most asked question of them all. After all, we are what we eat!

Nobody would consciously choose to ingest herbicides and pesticides (even if a government scientist did tell them they were safe in small quantities!). On top of that, organic food looks better, tastes better and is often of an obviously higher quality to its chemically enhanced relations.

Malcolm

The fact that you have a wide knowledge of the food supply and are not persuaded to follow an organic diet is entirely relevant. I wonder how many devotees of organic food are aware of the numerous derogations allowed by the Soil Association - so numerous, in fact, that there is probably no such thing as organic food in the terms understood by most of the population.

I wholeheartedly agree with the ethos of minimising the use of pesticides and maximising reliance upon good husbandry, and I am certainly in favour of using local food where possible, but to suggest that there is a total difference between organic and non organic food is nothing short of dishonest, in my opinion.

Dear Andrew,
From a legal point of view the European regulations do not allow that organic food can be claimed to be safer that regular food. Both have to accomplish with the same food safety regulations.
The confusion about organic food is mainly because very few people know that the basic reason of organic food is not food safety but to support production systems more friendly with the environment. The standards of organic food production are based in practices that have the lowest impact in the environment. No use of pesticides is and any other artificially synthetized substances is a way to diminish the use of oil based energy with less production of Co2 and so on.
But the marketing has probably found this argument not so easy to disseminate so it has been easer to appeal to food safety reasons. General ignorance on this subjects have contributed to the universal entrophy with more confusion.

Andrew,
The argument for respecting those who feel strongly about organic food and the continuing integrity of its supply is bigger than the presence or absence of any evidence of its nutritional benefits. Food is an emotive issue and people have every right to trust in and believe their 'common sense' judgement about the value of organic food to them. Science is only scratching at the surface of food safety and nutrition and while I respect the available science, I also respect human intuition. Food scientists should not patronise those who prefer organic food by offering merely the 'tolerant' attitude freedom of choice.
Given the food safety scandals of the last few decades, it is a sensible lifestyle choice to believe that organic food is on balance, 'safer'...in the broadest sense. Personally I am not persuaded to follow an organic diet, but I am privileged in having a wide knowledge of the food supply and make personal choices in that knowledge.